Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court noted that the circular dated 03-07-2018 mandated that preference should be given to persons with higher disabilities unless their condition prevents them from performing the job.
“The case in hand depicts the sorry state of affairs that prevails in society while dealing with differently abled persons. The fact that the petitioner who has 100% hearing and speech impairment from young age was able to complete the School Education and the Engineering course, shows the amount of grit and determination on his part to remain in the mainstream of the society.”
“It should be borne in mind that the RPwD Act which was enacted to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities – was with the objective of granting persons with disabilities full and effective participation and inclusion in society, grant them equal opportunity and to show respect for their inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make their own choices.”
‘As much as the Court may wish to intervene on behalf of a deserving candidate, it cannot overstep its jurisdiction by altering the established norms and benchmarks.’
Supreme Court said that the reservation for the Persons with disabilities has been treated as Horizontal Reservation i.e. the reservation under Clause (1) of Article 16, and not the Vertical reservation i.e. the reservation under Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court reiterated the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 578, that it would be extremely unfortunate if the Governments voluntarily and knowingly flouted the provisions of law solemnly enacted by Parliament.
The petitioner has contended that there is a distinction between making a comedy of a situation (which is permissible) and making a comedy of a condition of disability.
A pension of Rs. 500 to Rs. 900 per month is being given by the State Government to persons with disability, under the State sponsored Scheme Madhu Babu Pension Yojna as per their eligibility.
Allahabad High Court said that any relative or friend of the person lying in comatose state points out that guardian is not acting in the best interest of the person lying in comatose state, such person will also have the locus to approach this Court for issuance of proper direction and for removal of the guardian.
“Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and the State Government are directed to ensure that in all educational institutions, the statutory provisions governing the field under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 are followed and 5% reservation is provided to specially abled persons.”
Rajasthan High Court: The Division Bench of Satish Kumar Sharma and Indrajit Mahanty, JJ., dismissed the petition remitting the matter to State
Supreme Court: Considering the need of complying with the judgment rendered in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs. Union of India, (2014) 14